urge parliamentary scrutiny of the state within a state of the Khakis, especially the dreaded spy agency (DGFI). The interference of the Khakis into state politics will once again jeopardize institutionalization of elective democracy, good governance and secularism. The rogues fear social justice activists, critics, politicians and journalists too - Joy Manush!

Saturday, December 07, 2013

Bangladesh: Democracy Stumbles

The
country is once again in the grip of authoritarianism and political violence,
the roots of which run deep.

The announcement of the
schedule for elections to the tenth Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) on
November 25 has stoked an already volatile political situation in Bangladesh. The
ready reaction of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led opposition alliance to
the chief election commissioner’s televised speech to the nation, during which
he announced that the general electionswill be held
on January 5, 2014, came in the form of what was initially a 48-hour
countrywide blockade of road, rail and water ways, subsequently extended to 71
hours, beginning from November 26. The blockade ended on November 30, but the
BNP commenced another 72 hour countrywide blockade the next day, which was
ultimately extended until the evening of December 5. The alliance has called
for yet another blockade to begin on Saturday, December 7.

In the meantime, there has
beenwidespread
violence and vandalism: vehicles are torched, public and private
property destroyed. The death toll as reported on December 4 had reached 40 and
scores more have been wounded. Many of the casualties were caused by an
explosion of crude bombs and arson attacks on public transport. According to
Samanta Lal Sen, the coordinator of the burn and plastic surgery unit at DhakaMedicalCollegeHospital,
the premier public hospital in the country, several of the victims of political
violence,admitted with severe burn injuriesin the last one month, had died and
quite a few are in a critical condition.

The BNP-led alliance has
been engaged in street agitation for months now in its demand that Sheikh
Hasina resign as prime minister, given that her Awami League government
completed its term on October 25. The opposition alliance claims that polls
conducted under the government will not be free, fair or transparent. While the
two sides continue their finger-pointing over the ongoing political impasse and
social disorder, arising out of the failure of the ruling and opposition
political alliances to reach a consensus on election-time government, there
have reportedly been informal contacts between the feuding camps, supposedly geared
towards a dialogue. Still, publicly at least, the two camps have thus far
produced only contradictory statements about what the media has dubbed as“clandestine”
meetingsbetween the
general secretaries of the Awami League and the BNP.

A History of Acrimony

Mutual mistrust, acrimony
and recrimination between the two major political parties have come to mark
Bangladeshi national politics, especially since the ouster of HM Ershad’s
military regime in 1990 and the subsequent restoration of parliamentary
democracy in 1991. In any case, intense political unrest has marked almost
every election cycle in Bangladesh
since the country won independence in 1971. For instance, during the 2001
elections, which the BNP won, approximately 400 people were reportedly killed
and more than 17,000 injured, primarily in street clashes between members and
supporters of competing political camps. The next election cycle in 2007 also
resulted in several deaths and injuries, leading to an extra-constitutional
takeover by a military-backed interim government. The elections to the ninth
Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) were eventually held in December 2008,
with a 14-party alliance led by the Awami League scoring an electoral landslide
victory.

The seeds of the political
unrest and uncertainty over the forthcoming general elections were planted in
June 2012, when the Awami League-dominated parliament pushed through theFifteenth
Amendment to the constitution, scrapping the provision that
parliamentary elections must be held under a non-partisan caretaker government,
headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ironically, in 1996, the
Awami League and its opposition allies forced the then BNP-led government,
through prolonged street agitation, to incorporate that particular provision in
the form of the Thirteenth Amendment. Subsequently, two parliamentary
elections, in 1996 and 2001, were held under caretaker governments.

After being elected in
2001, the BNP-led government increased the retirement age for the Supreme Court
chief justice, apparently to have a person perceived loyal to it as the head of
the caretaker government for the next elections scheduled for 2007. Then the
main opposition party, the Awami League refused to accept the former chief
justice in question as the chief adviser to the caretaker government and took
to the streets. Amidst the consequent political stalemate, marked by sustained
violence across the country, scope was created for the military-backed interim
government to take over and rule for two years unconstitutionally, after
declaring a state of emergency.

Elections or no elections,
violence has become a major feature of Bangladesh politics. Numerous
political leaders and activists have been killed by rivals or by their own
party colleagues. Data from different human rights organizations suggests that
the total number of deaths resulting from political violence in 2013 is
substantially higher than in recent years, according to a report published in
New Age on November 7. Ain O Salish Kendra reported that politicalviolence had
claimed the lives of 289 peoplein
the first nine months of the current year while the figure was 84 for the whole
of 2012. According to a monthly report by rights organization Odhikar, at least27 people
were killedand 3,433
injured in political violence in October alone.

This political violence may
very well have had its origins in the early days of independent Bangladesh. The
Awami League, which had presided over the political struggle for the country’s
liberation and come to embody the people’s democratic aspirations, proved
autocratic in power. In 1975, its head and then president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
introduced BAKSAL, which banned all opposition parties and compelled the
country to adopt a one-party system. President Ziaur Rahman, the military
general-turned-politician and founder of the BNP, restored the multiparty
system in the late 1970s.

Military Intervention

Meanwhile, the path for
military intervention in the political process may have been paved during the
rule of the post-independence AL
government. Notes Professor Amena Mohsin of DhakaUniversity in her published research
paper: “The Mukti Bahini (liberation forces), which formed the nucleus of the Bangladesh army in the immediate aftermath of
the liberation war was divided along the regular Bengali forces of the then Pakistan army
and those recruited by the Awami League. After the liberation of Bangladesh,
Mujib paid little attention for rebuilding the armed forces; this was a cause
of major discontent among the army.” The discontent deepened when Mujib created
Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini (National Defence Force). Rakkhi Bahini was generally viewed
as a parallel institution and a threat to the interests of the army. The army
was also apparently fed up with the discrimination, and disenchanted with the AL government’s
unchecked rule, which had encouraged unbridled looting, illegal land grabbing
and civil disorder. It was also carrying the legacy of the Pakistan army,
which had its own track of deep engagement in politics. On August 15, 1975,
Mujib was assassinated by a group of Bangladeshi military officers.

General Ziaur Rahman
(popularly known as Zia) became president in 1977, following the resignation of
the interim government president, Justice Sayem, on the grounds of illness.
Many believed this was a Zia ploy to take control of the state with army
backing. Although Sayem had promised early elections, Zia kept delaying them.
The years of anarchy had left most of Bangladesh’s state institutions in
a shambles, with constant threats of military coups amidst strikes and
protests. Gaining total power, Zia banned political parties, censored the media,
re-imposed martial law and commanded the army to arrest opposition forces.
Ironically, Zia himself was assassinated in a military coup in 1981.

The country remained in the
grip of military and quasi-military rule from 1975 till 1990, when Ershad’s
regime, which had seized power through a military coup in 1982, was overthrown
by a popular uprising. For the first time in the political history of Bangladesh, all
major political parties joined forces to oust the rule, yet the role of the
army in politics had become entrenched. The end of the autocratic regime and
the election of the BNP in 1991 did not bring stability in the political arena
and the military remained a major factor. Meanwhile, the student wings of the
political parties have been encouraged to use arms, andcontinuous
hartals(general
strikes) emerged as a common phenomenon. Bangladesh politics became
increasingly weaponized and street-centric.

A Hybrid Regime

In 2004, when the BNP was
in power, AL president Sheikh Hasina was
speaking at a rally in front of the party’s Bangabandhu Avenue office in Dhaka when grenades were hurled, in what was an apparent
assassination attempt. Twenty people were killed and 300 injured. Since then,
grenades have been found inside Dhaka Central Jail, DhakaMedicalCollegeHospital
and at various cultural hubs. Disorder was rife during BNP’s last stint in
power and the state was unable to protect the political rights and civil
liberties of its citizens. The situation is unchanged, if not worse, during the
Awami League-led government, which is characterized by negligible checks and
balances. Not surprisingly, Bangladesh
continues to be categorized under “hybrid regimes” in the Democracy Index by
The Economist Intelligence Unit, meaning that democratic structures such as
elections exist but the state has remained fundamentally authoritarian.

Clearly, the political
system of Bangladesh
needs a review. Can it transition to a full democracy or will it remain a
hybrid regime? It is not easy to build a sturdy democracy. Even in established
democratic states, the system can corrode if not nurtured and protected. The
Global Corruption Barometer 2012, the largest worldwide survey on public views
on corruption, says 50 per cent of Bangladeshis surveyed in 2010 considered the
government’s measures effective in curbing corruption. After two years,that had
declinedto 26 per
cent. According to the survey, Bangladeshis see the political parties and the
police as the most corrupt institutions, followed by the judiciary, parliament
and civil administration. People have reason to lose faith, given theextent of
nepotism and graft. This erosion in faith persists with the two
major political parties refusing to desert confrontational politics and work
towards a transparent, accountable, and participatory democratic system.

Now, as the Awami League
continues to evince no interest in accommodating the BNP’s demands by clinging
to power beyond its tenure, while the opposition resorts to violent street
agitation, there are fears of a repeat of the January 2007 intervention by the
army. Were that to occur, Bangladesh
would once again be going backwards on the path towards democratization.